DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/22/2026:
Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
In view of the new amendments to claim 1, new rejections of Baek et al (US 20220158288 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hashida et al (US 20060145657 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20220077507 A1) in view of Onnerud et al (US 20180287127 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Ren et al (US 20220059901 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Poller et al (US 20150303422 A1) and Wang et al (US 20220123423 A1) in view of Jin et al (US 20200212518 A1) in view of Hashida et al (US 20060145657 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20220077507 A1) in view of Zhang et al (WO2019226764A1, using the document provided from Espacenet) have been set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 6 recites “the heat exchange portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the heat exchange portion of each of the plurality of battery cells” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Lines 6-7 recite “the bottom portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the bottom portion of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Line 8 recites “the battery cell assembly”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “each of the plurality of battery assemblies include” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Line 9 recites “the electrode tab lead portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the electrode tab lead portion of each of the plurality of battery cells” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Line 10 recites “the bus bar assembly”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “each of the bus bar assemblies” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Line 11 recites “the battery cell assembly”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “each of the plurality of battery assemblies” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Lines 12-13 recite “includes sidewall vent holes for discharging gas to the outside”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “includes sidewall vent holes for discharging gas to an outside of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 Line 13 recites “gas to the outside, and; wherein a central portion”. The Examiner suggests the semicolon be removed for grammatical purposes.
Claim 1 Line 16 recites “the outside”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the outside of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 Lines 1-2 recite “the electrode tab lead portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the electrode tab lead portion of each of the plurality of battery cells” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 Line 3 recites “the bottom portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the bottom portion of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 Line 3 recites “the heat exchange portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the heat exchange portion of each of the plurality of battery cells” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 Line 2 recites “the corner portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the corner portion of each of the electrode tab lead portions of each of the plurality of battery cells” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 Line 3 recites “the bottom portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the bottom portion of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 Line 3 recites “the heat exchange portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the heat exchange portion of each of the plurality of battery cells” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 Line 1 recites “the bottom portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the bottom portion of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 Line 3 recites “the step portion”. The Examiner suggests the claim be amended to recite “the step portion of the bottom portion of the housing” to ensure full and proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al (US 20220158288 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hashida et al (US 20060145657 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20220077507 A1) in view of Onnerud et al (US 20180287127 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Ren et al (US 20220059901 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Poller et al (US 20150303422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baek discloses a battery pack (battery module 100 in Figs. 2-3) comprising:
a battery cell assembly (at least two battery cells of the battery cell stack 120 in Figs. 2-3) formed by stacking a plurality of battery cells (110 in Figs. 2-3), each including an electrode tab lead portion (electrode lead 111 and 112 in Fig. 4) and a heat exchange portion (side of the battery cell that faces thermally conductive resin layer 310 in Figs. 2-6);
a housing in which a plurality of battery cell assemblies are seated (U-shaped Frame 300 in Figs. 2-6; each battery cell assembly can be five battery cells of the battery cell stack, it appears there are approximately ten battery cells in the battery cell stack, therefore, there are two battery cell assemblies in the housing), and which includes a bottom portion (bottom part 300a in Figs. 5-6) and a sidewall portion (side portions 300b in Figs. 5-6); and
a heat conduction member disposed between the heat exchange portion of each of the plurality of battery cells and the bottom portion of the housing (thermally conductive resin layer 310 in Figs. 2-6; see entire disclosure and especially P55-63); and
wherein each battery cell assembly includes a bus bar assembly comprising a metal bus bar coupled to the electrode tab lead portion of each of the plurality of battery cells (busbar frames 130 in Figs. 2-3, P55; there are two busbar frames, therefore, each of the two battery cell assemblies can be said to correspond to one frame each).
However, Baek does not disclose wherein an insulator supports the metal bus bar.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hashida teaches an assembled battery includes an insulating bus bar plate (support plate) that supports conductive bus bars which are electrically connected to the terminal surfaces (Abstract). Hashida teaches this structure allows a bus bar to be supported on the insulating bus bar plate without bolting, therefore, simplifying the operation of electrically connecting busbars to electrode terminals (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hashida and provided an insulator, such as the insulating bus bar plate of Hashida, to support the metal bus bar, given that Hashida teaches this can simplifying the operation of electrically connecting busbars to electrode terminals without the use of bolting.
However, modified Baek does not meet the limitation wherein each of the bus bar assemblies further includes a bus bar vent hole for discharging gas generated in each of the battery cell assemblies.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hilligoss teaches a battery module including a plurality of battery cell units electrically connected via a bus bar (P87-89). Hilligoss teaches the laminate bus bar includes a plurality of vent holes that are located directly above a vent for the battery cells (P99). Hilligoss teaches this provides a path for venting gases to escape (P99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hilligoss and provided wherein the bus bar assembly of modified Baek comprises a bus bar vent hole for discharging a gas generated in the battery cell assembly, such as vent holes formed in the bus bar, given that Hilligoss teaches this can provide a path for venting gases to escape.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “for discharging a gas generated in each of the battery cell assemblies” is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
However, modified Baek does not meet the limitation wherein the sidewall portion of the housing comprises a sidewall vent hole for discharging gas from the bus bar vent hole.
In a similar field of endeavor, Onnerud teaches vent structure can exhaust flammable gasses and release pressure build up inside a cell (P9).
Onnerud teaches a lithium ion battery (100 in Figs. 5-8A) includes a vent assembly (200 in Figs. 5-8A, P128). Onnerud teaches this vent structure functions to release pressure from within the container (P22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Onnerud and provided wherein the sidewall portion of the housing of modified Baek comprises a sidewall vent hole for discharging gas from the bus bar vent hole, such as the vent assembly of Onnerud, given that Onnerud teaches vent structures can exhaust flammable gasses and release pressure build up inside a cell.
However, modified Baek does not meet the limitation wherein a central portion of the housing includes a center beam formed from the sidewall portion of the housing, the center beam including a gas discharge hole for discharging gas directly to the outside.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ren teaches a battery tray with a base plate (10 in Figs 1A-1D) and includes partition plates (30 in Figs. 1A-1D, P48). Ren teaches that the partition plates divide the base plate into several regions for placing battery cells (P48). Ren teaches that the partition plates are also formed with a side beam (20 in Figs. 1A-1D) and both are formed therein with an air passage and are in communication with each other (P48). Ren further teaches that the side beam includes at least one exhaust vent (P48). Ren teaches that flame, smoke, or gas from a battery cell can enter the partition plates’ passages, diffuse into the side beam’s passages, and exhausted outside of the battery pack by the exhaust vent (P48). Ren teaches this structure of the battery tray can effectively prevent flame, smoke or gas discharged from the battery cell from accumulating inside the battery pack (P4).
Further, also in a similar field of endeavor, Poller teaches a battery unit (1 in Fig. 1) can include six accommodating units (7 in Fig. 1) separated by side walls (8 and 9 in Fig. 1; P39). Poller teaches the side walls can include a center beam (multipurpose side wall 9 in Fig. 1) that has a plurality of safety valves (14 in Figs. 1-2; P45). Poller teaches the plurality of safety valves communicate with openings (25 in Fig. 2) of a degassing collector (22 in Fig. 2) provided in the center beam to allow gas/fluid to flow into the degassing collector (P18, 49). Poller teaches the degassing collector also includes a discharge opening provided for discharging a fluid that enters the degassing collector (P23, 50). Poller teaches a discharge line can be arranged at the degassing collector (P23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of both Ren and Poller and provided wherein a central portion of the housing includes a center beam formed from the sidewall portion of the housing, the center beam including a gas discharge hole, given Ren teaches partition plates can divide multiple battery cells within a housing and effectively prevent flame, smoke or gas discharged from the battery cell from accumulating inside the battery pack and Poller teaches a center beam can be used to discharge gas/fluid from a battery unit to outside of a battery unit. Further, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “for discharging gas to the outside of the housing” is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 4, Baek discloses wherein the electrode tab lead portion further includes a corner portion at one end, the corner portion protruding more toward the bottom portion than the heat exchange portion (protrusion part 110p in Fig. 4, P59).
Regarding claim 5, Baek discloses wherein the bottom portion of the housing includes a step portion for accommodating the corner portion, which is formed to protrude more toward the bottom portion than the heat exchange portion (stepped part 300s in Fig. 5, P65).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al (US 20220158288 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hashida et al (US 20060145657 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20220077507 A1) in view of Onnerud et al (US 20180287127 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Ren et al (US 20220059901 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Poller et al (US 20150303422 A1) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Newman et al (US 20180048039 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Baek discloses wherein the bottom portion comprises a layer with a hole for forming the step portion (as the step portion is an empty portion of 310, such as hole, where the corner portion can sit).
However, Baek does not disclose wherein the bottom portion comprises at least two layers, wherein a first layer of the at least two layers comprises a refrigerant channel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Newman teaches a battery module (22 in Fig. 2) including a battery housing (30 in Fig. 2, P19). Newman teaches battery cells (34 in fig. 2) are positioned in the space (32 in Fig. 2) defined by the lower housing (36 in Fig. 2, P25). Newman teaches each battery module (22) includes a cooling plate (48) configured to absorb heat from the battery cells (34) in order to manage the heat generation associated with the battery cells (34, P25). Newman teaches the cooling plate (48), for example, includes at least one cooling channel (50 in Figs. 2-3) configured to receive a coolant fluid (P25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Newman and provided to modified Baek wherein the bottom portion comprises at least two layers, including a layer having a refrigerant channel, such as a cooling plate layer, given that this would provide additional cooling to the battery cells of Baek and Newman teaches a cooling plate can absorb heat from battery cells in order to manage the heat generation associated with battery cells.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20220123423 A1) in view of Jin et al (US 20200212518 A1) in view of Hashida et al (US 20060145657 A1, as given in the 08/28/2024 IDS) in view of Hilligoss et al (US 20220077507 A1) in view of Zhang et al (WO2019226764A1, using the document provided from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a battery pack (P in Figs. 2-3; see entire disclosure and especially P75-76) comprising:
a battery cell assembly formed by stacking a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 5 in Figs. 2-3), each including an electrode tab lead portion (see the electrode leads adjacent to explosion-proof valve 51 in Fig. 2) and a heat exchange portion (side of each battery cell 5 that faces toward base plate 11 in Figs. 2-6; see entire disclosure and especially P76-78, 82);
a housing in which a plurality of battery cell assemblies are seated (first box body 1 in Figs. 2-5; each battery cell assembly can be drawn to each group of battery cells on either side of center beam 13; therefore, it appears there are approximately two battery cell assemblies in Figs. 2-3), and which includes a bottom portion (base plate 11 in Figs. 2-6) and a sidewall portion (frame 12 in Figs. 2-5; see entire disclosure and especially P76-78); and
wherein a central portion of the housing includes a center beam extending from the sidewall portion of the housing (center beam 13 in Figs. 4-5 and 7-11; the center beam ), the center beam including a gas discharge hole for discharging gas directly to an outside of the housing (bottom of center beam 13 is open (therefore, has a gas discharge hole) and discharges can directly to the outside through exhaust passage 112, see Figs. 5 and 9-10; the Examiner notes that the limitation “for discharging gas directly to the outside” is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).).
While Wang does not teach the center beam is “formed” from the sidewall portion of the housing, this is merely integrating the sidewall portion of the housing and the center beam to form a one-piece construction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the center beam and sidewall portion of the housing as claimed in order to, for example, lessen the amount of manufacturing time and cost by only needing to form one piece of construction rather than multiple pieces or strengthen the connection between the center beam and sidewall portion by allowing them to be an integrated piece, because the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Wang discloses the bottom portion of the housing (base plate 11) can be provided with a water cooling passage to cool the plurality of battery cells (P78); however, Wang does not disclose a heat conduction member disposed between the heat exchange portion of each of the plurality of battery cells and the bottom portion of the housing.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jin teaches a cooling plate may not be absolutely flat due to challenges in the manufacturing process (P67). Jin teaches without thermally conductive adhesive, the cooling plate may not be effectively bonded onto a battery group which will result in a small contact area and also a small heat transfer area (P67). Jin teaches a thermally conductive adhesive can be applied between a cooling plate and a first battery group to fill a gap between the first battery group and the cooling plate, thereby increasing the heat transfer area and improving the thermal conduction effect (P67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Jin and provided to Wang a heat conduction member disposed between the heat exchange portion of each of the plurality of battery cells and the bottom portion of the housing, such as providing a thermally conductive adhesive between the bottom portion of the housing and a bottom battery cell of each of the plurality of battery cell assemblies, given Jin teaches this can fill possible gaps between battery groups and a cooling plate to increase the heat transfer area and improve the thermal conduction effect.
However, modified Wang does not meet the limitation wherein each of the battery cell assemblies includes a bus bar assembly comprising a metal bus bar coupled to the electrode tab lead portion of each of the plurality of battery cells in each respective bus bar assembly, and an insulator supporting the metal bus bar.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hashida teaches an assembled battery is comprised of a plurality of battery modules equipped with positive and negative output terminals (P20). Hashida teaches the terminal surfaces are electrically connected to conductive bus bars supported on an insulating bus bar plate (P20). Hashida teaches by using the bus bars to electrically connect the battery modules in series or parallel, an assembled battery having a desired electric current, voltage and capacity can be formed (P22).
Hashida teaches this structure allows a bus bar to be supported on the insulating bus bar plate without bolting, therefore, simplifying the operation of electrically connecting busbars to electrode terminals (P5).
While Hashida is drawn to electrically connecting neighboring battery modules rather than neighboring single batteries, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize single batteries are electrically connected in a similar manner and would also benefit from an electrical connection structure that allows for simplifying the operation of connecting bus bars to electrode terminals. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a bus bar supported on an insulating bus bar plate to electrically connect neighboring battery modules to simply form an assembled battery having a desired electric current, voltage and capacity), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a bus bar supported on an insulating bus bar plate to electrically connect neighboring single batteries to simply form an assembled battery having a desired electric current, voltage and capacity), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hashida and provided to modified Wang wherein each of the battery cell assemblies includes a bus bar assembly comprising a conductive bus bar coupled to the electrode tab lead portion of each of the plurality of battery cells in each respective bus bar assembly, and an insulator supporting the conductive bus bar, given Hashida teaches using conductive bus bars supported on an insulating bus bar plate can electrically connect battery structures in series or parallel to form an assembled battery having a desired electric current, voltage and capacity and allow for simplifying the operation of electrically connecting busbars to electrode terminals.
However, modified Wang does not meet the limitation the conductive bus bar is a metal bus bar or wherein each of the bus bar assemblies further include a bus bar vent hole for discharging gas generated in each of the plurality of battery cell assemblies.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hilligoss teaches a bus bar can include a plurality of metal bars held between plastic sheets (P91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hilligoss and selected the material of the conductive bus bar to be metal, given Hilligoss teaches metal is a known material used for a bus bar, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Hilligoss further teaches a battery module including a plurality of battery cell units electrically connected via the bus bar (P87-89). Hilligoss teaches the laminate bus bar includes a plurality of vent holes that are located directly above a vent for the battery cells (P99). Hilligoss teaches this provides a path for venting gases to escape (P99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hilligoss and provided wherein each of the bus bar assemblies of modified Wang comprises bus bar vent holes for discharging a gas generated in each of the battery cell assemblies, such as vent holes formed in the bus bar, given that Hilligoss teaches this can provide a path for venting gases to escape.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “for discharging a gas generated in each of the battery cell assemblies” is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
However, modified Wang does not meet the limitation wherein the sidewall portion of the housing includes sidewall vent holes for discharging gas to the outside of the housing.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zhang teaches a breathable vent plug that can advantageously provide for breathability for regular pressure regulation in the battery, as well as rapid internal pressure release in the event of such buildup in the battery (P13). Zhang teaches the vent plug is for a battery module and can enable a pressure to be substantially maintained within the battery module housing during normal operation (P37). Zhang teaches the vent plug (58 in Fig. 3) is provided in a side wall of a housing (54 in Fig. 3; P51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Zhang and provided to modified Wang wherein the sidewall portion of the housing includes sidewall vent holes for discharging gas to the outside of the housing, such as providing the breathable vent plug of Zhang on two sides of the sidewall portion (frame 12) of modified Wang, each side corresponding to one of the two battery cell assemblies, given Zhang teaches the vent plug can enable a pressure to be substantially maintained within a battery module housing during normal operation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this would allow each section in the housing where the two battery cell assemblies sit in modified Wang pressure regulation during normal operation. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “for discharging gas to the outside of the housing” is an intended-use limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights